green
Positive treatment
Issue: Wife motionAZ ↗
Issue: Father motionAZ ↗
Issue: notice pleading standardAZ ↗
Issue: Mother motionAZ ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
76.7 score
“this court is reluctant to perform the duties of counsel for either party to an appeal; however, . . . we remain inclined to decide cases on their merits.”
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Smartcomm v. Palmieri
this court is reluctant to perform the duties of counsel for either party to an appeal; however, . . . we remain inclined to decide cases on their merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Neri v. Phx union/az School
we remain inclined to decide cases on their merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Losacker v. Welle
However, even when a party fails to comply with court rules, we may still, in our discretion, decline to apply the doctrine of waiver “to decide cases on their merits.” Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Al Jajo v. arrowhead/benchmark
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966) (courts are inclined to decide cases on their merits); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107 , 108–10 (1973) (where an opening brief was “grossly deficient,” the court was “loathe to penalize appellant by complete rejection” but, after considering the merits, affirmed the lower court judgment). ¶9 We do not address Al Jajo’s other arguments, such as the need for a hip replacement and complaints about the attorney who represented him in the pre-hearing phase of the case, because they are not relevant to the issue before us; wh…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Danko v. Wilson
See In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62 , 64–65, ¶ 6 (2013); Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶8 As for Myers, she has not filed an answering brief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Adot
See Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973); Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶10 Third, Allen raises two arguments for the first time on appeal: (1) the blood test results sent to the EHO are inadmissible under A.R.S. § 28-1385(C); and (2) the law regarding actual physical control is too vague.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green Cross v. Mangisi
We agree with Green Cross’s characterization of the Trust’s brief but decline to reject the Trust’s appeal on this basis, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973), and we rely on our record review for the necessary facts, see Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, 457 , ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2011); State Farm Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doria v. Yelp
Comm’n, 214 Ariz. 489, 491 , ¶ 6 n.2 (App. 2007), and instead exercise our discretion to decide Doria’s appeal on the merits, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Danko v. Whiting
Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), insofar as Danko raises substantive issues.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mauney v. Banner
See Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (App. 1973); Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶8 Alternatively, Banner requests we strike from Mauney’s opening brief any facts that cannot be verified “via specific citations to either admissible evidence or testimony,” the portions of the brief “discussing Dr. Khan, Dr. Bhullar, or the kyphoplasty procedure,” and “all references and citations to evidence not before the Superior Court when it decided Banner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” ¶9 “We review the decision on the record made in the trial court,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferraro v. Ferraro
Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), insofar that true legal issues can be gleaned from Father’s brief. ¶7 Father’s primary contention appears to be that the court gave undue weight to some evidence while improperly ignoring other evidence.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
state/carlos v. Lewis
App. P. 13(a), we nonetheless exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to X.B. and D.B.
Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 , 178–79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶10 Our supreme court has directed us to “affirm a termination order unless the juvenile court abuses its discretion or the court’s findings are not supported by reasonable evidence.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471 , 478 ¶ 29 (2023).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.W.
Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 , 178–79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶10 Our supreme court has directed us to “affirm a termination order unless the juvenile court abuses its discretion or the court’s findings are not supported by reasonable evidence.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471 , 478 ¶ 29 (2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R & a Smart v. Frank
Adam v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1984) (citing Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.M.
Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 , 178–79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in exercise of our discretion, we will address the substance of Mother’s argument, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶9 A juvenile court’s termination determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Dependency as to A.C.
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶11 We review an order adjudicating a child dependent for an abuse of discretion, deferring to the juvenile court’s ability to weigh and analyze the evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Houseopoly LLC v. Sky Boles
Nevertheless, because we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we would attempt to discern and address the substance of Boles’s arguments, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), but we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. ¶6 Boles argues that the superior court abused its discretion in denying her post-judgment motions to (1) quash the writ of restitution and vacate the judgment for medical cause, (2) extend the time to file an answer, and (3) extend the time to file dispositive motions because she presented evidence of medical hardship.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shea v. Maricopa
Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 6 (2008) (reaffirming the notice pleading standard for civil complaints); Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966) (reiterating our long-standing preference to decide cases on the merits). ¶36 Tellingly, neither the County nor the first superior court judge to rule on this matter had any trouble discerning the decision challenged or the issues raised based on the Sheas’ original complaint.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill v. State
Nevertheless, we decline to reject the brief on that basis, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), and choose to address the merits of Hill’s arguments. 3 HILL v. STATE, et al.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Smith
Although we could summarily reject Father’s appeal on that basis, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973), we decline to do so and instead address the merits of the arguments we can identify presented in Father’s appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemay v. Lemay
Although we could summarily reject Father’s appeal, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973), we will address the merits of the arguments we can identify presented in Father’s appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Agfd v. Scheeler
However, while these deficiencies may be sufficient cause for dismissal, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), we decline the Department's invitation because our general preference is to decide cases upon their merits, Drees v. Drees, 16 Ariz.App. 22, 23 (1971). 4 We cite to the current version of the statute, as there have been no material changes to the law relevant to this case. 4 AGFD v. SCHEELER Decision of the Court ¶10 The core of Scheeler's argument is that the Phoenix police officer remained present at the range campground when Scheeler honked and waved to the Employee.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mattison v. Scottsdale
Because we prefer to decide cases on the merits, Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), in our discretion we address Mattison’s arguments as best as we can understand them. 3 MATTISON v. SCOTTSDALE et al.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cason v. Cason
We are not required to assume the duties of an advocate and search voluminous records and exhibits to substantiate an appellant’s claims.”) (quoting State v. Turovh, 3 Ariz. App. 252, 254 (1966), and citing Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966)). 7 CASON v. CASON Decision of the Court ¶15 While application of the Valento formula is certainly preferable where possible, the family court retains discretion to value assets in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eastman v. Eastman
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966). 2 EASTMAN v. EASTMAN Decision of the Court Tuba City.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jaffe v. Capital One
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burch & Cracchiolo v. Moore
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McNeil v. Goff
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. Valley National Bank
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz.
Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 , 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Nobles v. Noce
Flynn v. Flynn, 257 Ariz. 1 , 3, ¶ 6 (App. 2024); accord Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Mohave v. Messner
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). 3 MOHAVE v. MESSNER Decision of the Court ordinances must be published when adopted, the statute specifies no consequence for nonpublication.
cited
Cited "see"
Gray v. Courtyard Towers dba/church Mutual
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Salcido v. Hamilton
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). 6 SALCIDO v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court are “in writing and signed by the parties personally or by counsel on a party’s behalf.” Ariz. R.
cited
Cited "see"
Sunstate v. Elflein
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519 , 523, ¶ 10 (App. 2022).
discussed
Cited "see"
Soto v. Umom New Day
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). ¶11 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
discussed
Cited "see"
Garza v. Collinsworth
See 6 GARZA v. COLLINSWORTH Decision of the Court Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966) (an appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain a deficient brief on its merits). ¶21 We review the superior court’s legal decision-making and parenting-time orders for an abuse of discretion.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.K.
See Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). 3 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.K. et al.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cherry v. Mendoza
See Adams, 139 Ariz. at 342 (citing Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966)). ¶8 First, Father says that he “wish[es] to press criminal charges against [the court-appointed advisor and superior court judge].” Next, he lists a series of statutes from the Arizona criminal code that ostensibly apply: A.R.S. §§ 13-2702, -105, -302, -305, -803, and -804.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John CLEMENS, Appellant,
v.
Lynne CLARK, a Minor, and Rodney C. Clark and Lola Clark, Husband and Wife, Parents and Next Friends of Said Minor, Appellees
v.
Lynne CLARK, a Minor, and Rodney C. Clark and Lola Clark, Husband and Wife, Parents and Next Friends of Said Minor, Appellees
8126.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Nov 23, 1966.
Stephen W. Connors, Phoenix, for appellant., Snell & Wilmer, Roger W. Perry, Phoenix, for appellees.
Udall, Struckmeyer, Bernstein, Lockwood, McFarland.
Cited by 69 opinions | Published
UDALL, Justice.
In plaintiff’s motor vehicle negligence action judgment was entered upon a verdict rendered by the jury in favor of defendants Lynne Clark, a minor, Rodney C. Clark and Iola Clark, parents of Lynne Clark. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
In his opening brief the plaintiff-appellant makes the following statement of facts :
“This case arose out of an auotmobile collision between JOHN CLEMENS and Defendant, LYNNE CLARK WEST-OVER, a minor, wherein the latter either ran a stop sign or left it not in safety, and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged permanent injury.”
Counsel for the defendant-appellee, in his appeal brief, requests this Court to dismiss the appeal due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 5(b), 17 A.R.S. Rules of the Supreme Court, which requires an appellant’s brief to contain the following:
“4. A concise statement of the ultimate facts of the case material to determination of the issues presented in this court, as appellant contends them to be proved by the evidence submitted upon the trial * *
With regard to the above rule, this Court stated in 1923, in Smith v. City of Nogales, 24 Ariz. 557, at 558, 211 P. 592:
“ * * * The observance of this rule is absolutely necessary to an understanding of the assignments of error and the argument of counsel to follow. The frequency with which it is neglected prompts the court to warn the profession that it constitutes sufficient cause for dismissal. Without adopting that drastic method of disposing of this case, we will assume a burden that properly belongs to counsel, simply because we incline, when we reasonably can, to decide each case upon its merits rather than summarily upon motion or sua sponte.”
The failure of appellant’s counsel to comply with Rule 5(b) would ordinarily be regarded by this Court as sufficient cause for dismissal. The brief statement of facts made by the appellant is of no value whatsoever in aiding this Court in understanding the five assignments of error which are subsequently presented, and which, collectively, are so broad as to require this Court to assume the duties of an advocate by searching a voluminous record and examining many exhibits in order to determine if there is merit to the appeal. As we recently stated in Milam v. Milam, 101 Ariz. 323, 419 P.2d 502, October 19, 1966, this Court is reluctant to perform the duties of counsel for either party to an appeal; however, since we remain inclined to decide cases on their merits and not to punish litigants because of the inaction of their counsel, we have reviewed the record in the present case, and since we find no merit in any of the assignments of error the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants is affirmed.
STRUCKMEYER, C. J., BERNSTEIN, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.